UASOCS_Draft_RFP_Comment_Q A_Matrix__FBO_posting.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Center Support (UASOCS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-14-R-0018
About this file
Q A on Draft RFP previously issued. Comment matrix contains questions and associated answers. Corrections/changes will be incorporated in the Final RFP which is projected for posting late January 2015
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Center Support (UASOCS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Industry Questions
| Document(s) Reviewed: | Draft RFP | ||
| No. | Document | Comments / Questions | Disposition |
A = Accepted (comment accepted verbatim) R = Rejected (comment entirely rejected; provide a brief explanation for R disposition) P = Partially accepted/rejected (comment was either accepted or rejected in part; provide a brief explanation for P disposition)
| 1. | PWS | |||
| Sec L&M | 1. Data Management. Para 2.8.2 of the draft PWS states, “the contractor shall provide an unclassified computer-aided data management system through a contractor-hosted website at contract start,” but there is not mention of this requirement or how this system will be evaluated in the draft RFP (Section L&M) | This will not be evaluated; however, the contractor will have to provide a DMS at contract start according to the PWS. | ||
| 2. | Draft RFP | 2. The DRFP requires three plans be submitted: Maintenance Control Plan, HR plan, and Transition Plan. Recommend the Government consider having these Plans be provided as attachments with an appropriate page count (10-15 pages for each) that allows full details be provided. | No, all three plans will be included with 60-page count | |
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 3. Industry Day Question 8. “Resumes are only required for OCONUS personnel due to TESA requirements.” Please provide instructions or guidance in the RFP on how Industry will provide the required resumes in our proposal for the RPA Satellite Support at Ramstein to support TESA approval. | Resumes are not required at this point with the proposals. The resumes will be required upon award of the contract. | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 4. Industry Day Question 43. “Past Performance volume will be required prior to the other volumes.” Please clarify is this requirement has changed. The Draft RFP does not specifically discuss the timeline for submission of PP | Past Performance will be required at the same time as the other two volumes | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 5. Industry Day Question 68. “PWS reflects what is currently being done to date. New will be the reachback sites and the 556 TES.” With the addition of the 556 TES, will the Government update the PWS and associated appendices that provide mission-specfic support for the 556 TES | Government is currently working to include 556 TES in the recompete. Review the final RFP for any new information. | ||
| Industry Day Q&A | ||||
| Draft RFP | 6. Industry Day Question 126.”All support services at Kadena are provided to employees and dependents.” Is support services provided at Ramstein for employees and dependents? | Offerors should refer to PWS 2.1.3 and URL listed for additional information | ||
| Sec L&M | 7. In Section L Under Aspect 1 – Management and Integration, the Government is requesting a proposed …”manning levels and skill mix of program management function.” The corresponding Section M for Aspect 1 – Management and Integration, states the evaluation will be to the ..”manning levels by position, skill sets by position, …and cohesive functional relationships to execute program requirements.” Is the manning levels and skill mix exclusive to management or is the government looking for manning levels and skill mix for the entire organization? | For the entire organization that supports UASOCS. Language in L will be updated to state this. | ||
| 3. | PWS | |||
| App Q | 8. The RPA SATCOM relay sites listed in the PWS (EUR-2, PAC-1 and EUR-3) do not match with Appendix Q (EUR-1A, EUR-1B, EUR-2, PAC-1, PAC-2); are there 3 RPA SATCOM Relay Sites or 5? | Appendix Q will be update to correspond to the PWS. There are 3 RPA SATCOM Relay Sites...EUR-2, PAC-1 and EUR-3 | ||
| 4. | PWS | |||
| App Q | 9. The SATCOM Relay Sites in the PWS are annotated with ‘CY16’. Appendix Q shows FY’s 13, 14, and 15, with the UASOCS CLIN Pricing Sheet Updated rev 1 showing Sigonella RPA Satcom Relay O&M as an Option year 2 CLIN. How do these various sites align between PWS, Appendix Q, and UASOCS CLINs Pricing Sheet rev 1? | Appendix Q will be update to correspond to the PWS and CLIN structure | ||
| 5. | PWS | 10. What is the location of EUR-2 (Southern Europe)? | Ramstein AB Germany | |
| 6. | Sec M | 11. Would the government clarify what criteria it evaluates Section M, para M-3.1.3.1 Aspect I: Transition Plan as an ‘effective procedure to hire, train, and certify non-incumbent personnel in the event hiring goals are not met to ensure uninterrupted service”? | There is a paragraph numbering error. Should be M-3.1.4.1. "Effective" ??? | |
| 7. | Sec M | 12. Reference Section M, para M-3.1.3.1 Aspect I: Transition Plan; would the government allocate a specific time frame to achieve hiring goals? | At contract start. The transition period will be used to achieve the hiring goals | |
| 8. | App E | 13. The government announced at the 8 Oct 14 Creech AFB Site Visit that the PEBs we were visiting and the 556 TES would now be added to the UASOCS re-compete contract. Appendix E does not list these facilities, but they are listed on the CLIN Pricing Sheet Updated rev 1 – Would the government provide clarification between CLIN Pricing Sheet and PWS Appendix E as to facilities to be priced and supported? | Appendix E will be updated to include PEB & 556 TES |
PEB is supported under CLINs 14, 18, & 19; 556 TES is under CLIN 27
| 9. | 14. With the increase in scope announced on 8 Oct 14 at the UASOCS Creech AFB Site Visit and the increase in Service Summary performance thresholds, would the government consider re-evaluating the acquisition strategy? | NO the strategy will be an LPTA | |
| 10. | App F | 15. Appendix F – Award Fee Plan: Annex 2 Evaluation Criteria, Definitions and Weights allots 40% of Award Fee to Technical Performance; Worksheet C in Annex 8 of the same appears to calculate based on 30% for Technical Performance - Would the government provide clarification on the different %’s and method of award fee calculation? | Government will correct. |
| 11. | Sec M | 16. By what criteria does the Government evaluate Section M, paragraph M-3.1.1.2 Aspect II: Human Resources (c.) to be an ‘effective approach’ to limiting and mitigating employee turnover and vacancies’ in an LPTA source selection? | "Effective" ???? |
| 12. | App K | 17. Reference Draft Appendix K, Is it the Government’s desire that Senior Network Engineer have both JNCIP and CCNP certifications, or is the governments desire to follow industry norms that these certifications are “either/or”? | Appendix K will be changed to "either/or" |
| 13. | App K | 18. Reference Draft Appendix K: Would the government provide what qualifies as “Certified Internetwork Expert” and how it will evaluate 7 years of experience? | Government will review the qualification summary of the proposed candidates. |
| 14. | App N | 19. Can the government clarify the security clearance requirements in Appendix N for the 26 WPS and 556 TES? | Appendix will be updated to include 26 WPS and 556 TES |
The minimum required security clearance is TS/SCI
| 15. | App O | 20. Appendix O, Para 1.1 network listing appears to contain systems that are not traditionally considered as networking equipment. Would the Government provide further clarification between Network Equipment and Software/Systems to be serviced by the PWS? | Appendix O lists the level support required by the PWS. All hardware and software supported by this contract are listed on FBO. |
| 16. | Sec L | 21. Previous questions from the May 2014 UASOCS Industry Day stated a resume requirement for TESA clearances. Would the government clarify whether or not resumes are to be included in a proposal? | Resumes are not required at this point with the proposals. The resumes will be required upon award of the contract. |
| 17. | App O | 22. Does Appendix O para 2.1 list all the networks to be serviced by the PWS? | Yes |
| 18. | PWS | 23. Given the 99.998% system O&M performance standard required in the Table 1.5 Service Summary, will the government develop specified risk factors that will be evaluated as a Technical Factor? | The Government will not develop any risk factors to be evaluated. |
| 19. | 24. Based on the stated criteria, the ability to meet the stringent Operational Availability of the UAS systems and sensors is of the highest priority to the end user and the Government. As a result, it is most logical to weigh the technical capabilities of the respondents prior to making a price selection. Therefore, will the government adapt their evaluation criteria to include technical capability and past performance with a weight more indicative of National Command Authority objectives, compared to a cost only criteria? | No, the Government is not going to weight the factors since this is an LPTA source selection. | |
| 20. | PWS | 25. Will the Government ensure coordinated risk management and mitigation have been exercised supporting the technical acceptability rate of 99.998%. | The Government will not develop any risk factors to be evaluated. After award the rate will be verified by COR oversight. |
| 21. | Sec L&M | 26. How does the Government plan to evaluate the offer’s capability for meeting product/services and process technical, cost, and schedule requirements while addressing and controlling the risks inherent in the program? | The LPTA process is an acceptable/unacceptable process. |
| 22. | Sec L |
L-8.3
| Atch 1 (PPI) | 27. PPI Contract Reference Sheet (Attachment 1). Does not define what “major or critical” teammate/partner is, please clarify/define. | “Major or critical” teammate/partner is one that performs 51% or more of the contract being referenced. | ||
| 23. | Sec L | |||
| L-9.1.2 | 28. Offerors may propose ceilings for its indirect rates, we do not believe this is applicable b/c everything appears to be FFP based. If so, please clarify. | This would refer to the cost CLINs. | ||
| 24. | Schedule B | |||
| Pricing | 29. Both CLINs_Pricing_Sheet and Section_B_CLINs file show CLIN 0001 (Base Year award fee) as $700K, but the award fee plan identifies the initial/evaluation period (including transition) to be $450K. Please verify if the fill-in for CLIN 0001is supposed to be $800K? | The $450K located at 6.2 of the Award Fee Plan is for the 8-month period which includes the 2-month transition and 6-month base period of performance. CLIN 0001 will be increased to $800K. All options XXX1 CLINS will be $700K. | ||
| 25. | 30. Are there any CBAs in place on the existing contract(s)? | No. | ||
| 26. | PWS | |||
| 2.8.7 | 31. Since scope include repairs, requesting the Govt to provide access to the historical metrics or recommend the Govt to provide a “plug in” cost for annual repairs. | No the Govt will not provide "plug-in" costs for annual repairs. | ||
| 27. | 32. Do you have access to the Special Access Program (SAP) materials and information for 17 RS, 22 RS and 867 RS requirements? If so, how quickly can non-incumbent staff be briefed for access to SAP and what is the process during transition period? | Yes, the Govt does have access to SAP materials. This information will be released following contract award. Non-incumbent personnel will be in-briefed during the transition period based upon proper clearance levels and need to know. | ||
| 28. | 33. Request the Govt to identify what requirements constitute staff requiring DoD 8570.01M certifications and what staff will require the various levels of certification? | All personnel managing the network must be DoD 8570.01M Certified. See Appendix K. | ||
| 29. | RFP L&M | 34. As part of the source selection process, would the Air Force consider the methodology we offer as an example in Attachment 1 of this letter which integrates execution risk into the Air Force source selection evaluation process for the UASOCS major performance work areas? | No. | |
| 30. | RFP L&M | 35. What is an equivalent qualification/credential for PMP for the Program Manager? Would 5 years as a Program Manager (on contracts of similar size, scope and complexity) be an acceptable substitution? | Yes | |
| 31. | RFP L&M | 36. Can a classified program for past performance be used as long as the content of the write up and PPIQ are unclassified? | Yes | |
| 32. | ||||
| 33. | ||||
| 34. | ||||
| 35. | ||||
| 36. | ||||
| 37. | ||||
| 38. | ||||
| 39. | ||||
| 40. | ||||
| 41. | ||||
| 42. | ||||
| 43. | ||||
| 44. | ||||
| 45. | ||||
| 46. | ||||
| 47. | ||||
| 48. | ||||
| 49. | ||||
| 50. | ||||
| 51. | ||||
| 52. | ||||
| 53. | ||||
| 54. | ||||
| 55. |
| 56. |
| 57. |
| 58. |
| 59. |
| 60. |
| 61. |
| 62. |
| 63. |
| 64. |
| 65. |
| 66. |
| 67. |
UASOCS RECOMPETE COMMENT MATRIX
Page &P of &N
Blank
| Document(s) Reviewed: | |||||||
| No. | Reviewer | Document | Page # | Para # | Line # | Comments | Disposition |
A = Accepted (comment accepted verbatim) R = Rejected (comment entirely rejected; provide a brief explanation for R disposition) P = Partially accepted/rejected (comment was either accepted or rejected in part; provide a brief explanation for P disposition)
| 1. |
| 2. |
| 3. |
| 4. |
| 5. |
| 6. |
| 7. |
| 8. |
| 9. |
| 10. |
| 11. |
| 12. |
| 13. |
| 14. |
| 15. |
| 16. |
| 17. |
| 18. |
| 19. |
| 20. |
| 21. |
| 22. |
| 23. |
| 24. |
| 25. |
| 26. |
| 27. |
| 28. |
| 29. |
| 30. |
| 31. |
| 32. |
| 33. |
| 34. |
| 35. |
| 36. |
| 37. |
| 38. |
| 39. |
| 40. |
| 41. |
| 42. |
| 43. |
| 44. |
| 45. |
| 46. |
| 47. |
| 48. |
| 49. |
| 50. |
| 51. |
| 52. |
| 53. |
| 54. |
| 55. |
| 56. |
| 57. |
| 58. |
| 59. |
| 60. |
| 61. |
| 62. |
| 63. |
| 64. |
| 65. |
| 66. |
| 67. |
UASOCS RECOMPETE COMMENT MATRIX
Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .